in 3.2.2 appears "The type of the attribute must not be a nullable or non-nullable sequence type, and it must not be a union type if one of its member types (or one of its member types’s member types, and so on) is a nullable or non-nullable sequence type."
is it not redundant to say "nullable or non-nullable sequence type" when "sequence type" would suffice? or is not the case that "nullable or non-nullable" is tautologous? if it is not, then an example is sorely needed
I use "sequence type" to mean the same thing as "non-nullable sequence type". I used the phrase "nullable or non-nullable sequence type" because I thought "(potentially nullable) sequence type" or similar would be confusing.
I think I will go through and replace instances of "nullable or non-nullable X" with "X or nullable X".